Evaluation study of the forestry measures under rural development : executive summary.
Date: 2018-03-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development
Subjects: EU aid, EU environmental policy, afforestation, forestry economics, forestry holding, forestry policy, report, rural development

Evaluation study of the 
forestry measures under Rural 
Development 

Executive summary 

ALLIANCE ENVIRONNEMENT EEIG 
November 2017 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development  
Directorate C. — Strategy, Simplification and Policy Analysis 
Unit C.4. Evaluation and monitoring 

Contact: Andreas LILLIG 

E-mail:  Andreas.LILLIG@ec.europa.eu 

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Evaluation study of the 
forestry measures under Rural 
Development 

Executive summary 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers  
to your questions about the European Union. 

Freephone number (*): 

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 

(*) 

The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone 

boxes or hotels may charge you). 

LEGAL NOTICE 

The information and views set out in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the 
official opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this 
study. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for 
the use which may be made of the information contained therein. 

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2017 

ISBN 978-92-79-65578-4 
doi:10.2762/57921 

© European Union, 2017 
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation study of the forestry measures under Rural Development 

OBJECTIVES 

The  objective  of  this  evaluation  study  of  the  Forest  Measures  under  Rural  Development 
was to carry out an evaluation of these measures, at the EU 28 level and for the present 
programming  period  2014-2020.  It  covers  16  evaluation  study  questions  (EQ)  relating 
to:  the  drivers influencing  the  implementation  choices  taken  by Member States/Regions 
and  beneficiaries,  as  well  as  the  effects  of  the  measures  production,  geographical 
distribution;  effectiveness  (in  relation  to  economic,  environmental  and  climate 
objectives); efficiency; coherence; relevance; and EU added value. 

WHAT ARE THE FORESTRY MEASURES UNDER RURAL DEVELOPMENT? 

Two measures specifically target forests holders and projects in forest areas: Measure 8, 
supporting  investments  in  forest  area  development  and  improvement  of  the  viability  of 
forests,  and  Measure  15,  dedicated  to  forest-environmental  and  climate  services  and 
forest conservation. As for most of the RD measures, their inclusion in an RDP is left to 
the  discretion  of  the  RDP  Managing  Authorities,  at  national  and/or  regional  level.  These 
measures  are  implemented  on  a  voluntary  basis,  following  beneficiaries’  application  for 
support. For the 2014-2020 programming period, the forest measures were opened in 92 
of the 100 RDPs in the continental EU, in 24 Member States. 

These two measures include sub-measures targeting specific objectives: 

-  M8.1. Support for afforestation/creation of woodland 
-  M8.2. Support for establishment and maintenance of agroforestry systems 
-  M8.3. Support  for  prevention  of  damage  to  forests  from  forest  fires  and  natural 

disasters and catastrophic events 

-  M8.4. Support  for  restoration  of  damage  to  forests  from  forest  fires  and  natural 

disasters and catastrophic events 

-  M8.5. Support  for  investments  improving  the  resilience  and  environmental  value  of 

forest ecosystems 

-  M8.6. Support  for  investments  in  forestry  technologies  and  in  processing,  mobilising 

and marketing of forest products 

-  M15.1. Payment for forest-environmental and climate commitments 
-  M15.2. Support for the conservation and promotion of forest genetic resources 
In addition to M8 and 15 dedicated to forest, other RDP measures implemented in forest 
can also play a very significant role, particularly M1 (knowledge transfer and information) 
M.2 (advisory services), M4.3 (infrastructure), M12.2 (compensation payment for Natura 
2000)  and  16.2  (cooperation).  These  measures  have  been  taken  into  account  by  the 
evaluators to appraise  the effect of the whole set of measures implemented in forest in 
light of the objectives European Forest Strategy of 2013 built on three guiding principles:  

-  Sustainable  forest  management  and  the  multifunctional  role  of  forests,  delivering 

multiple goods and services in a balanced way and ensuring forest protection;  

-  Resource efficiency optimising the contribution of forests and the forest sector to rural 

development, growth and job creation;  

-  Global  forest  responsibility,  promoting  sustainable  production  and  consumption  of 

forest products. 

METHODOLOGY 

The starting point for the evaluation was the development of an intervention logic for the 
Forestry Measures, focussing on their contribution to the three general objectives of the 
CAP.  Depending  on  the  data  availability,  and  due  to  the  very  short  period  of 
implementation  of  the  evaluated  measures,  the  evaluation  was  based  both  on  the 
programming data of the 2014-2020 period and on implementation data of the previous 
period  (2007-2013).  This  was  made  possible  as  the  set  of  measures  implemented  in 
forest are very similar over the two periods. Answers to the EQ are mainly based on the 
analysis of implementation data from the SFC databases (outputs of 2007-13 and targets 
for 2014-20), statistical data from FADN, forestry databases, LULUCF reports and in the 
RDPs.  Literature  reviews  were  utilised  to  appraise  on  the  effects  of  forest  practices  and 
operations  on  biodiversity,  water,  soils,  climate  change  mitigation  and  adaptation. 

2 

 
 
 
 
Evaluation study of the forestry measures under Rural Development 

Fourteen  case  studies  were  carried  out  in  Member  States/Regions  located  in  Austria, 
Bulgaria,  France,  Germany,  Greece,  Italy,  Finland,  Hungary,  Lithuania,  Slovakia,  Spain, 
Sweden and the UK., involving statistical data collection at the national, and/or regional 
level;  documentary  research,  including  literature  reviews;  and  interviews  (face-to-face 
semi-structured interviews) at national and regional level with key stakeholders including 
beneficiaries’ representatives and Government officials. Finally, a questionnaire survey to 
Managing  Authorities  was  used  to  find  the  main  drivers  behind  the  Forestry  Measures 
programming an implementation, as well as to appraise the administrative burden linked 
to the Forestry measures, and the EU added value. These data have been analysed using 
a  variety  of  tools  and  assessed  when  possible  against  counterfactual  situations  without 
the Forestry Measures.  

DRIVERS 

The  successful  implementation  of  similar  forest  measures  in  the  previous  programming 
period and the continuation of well-established RD support appear to be among the key 
drivers at Managing authorities and beneficiaries’ level. Financial considerations are also 
among  the  most  important  drivers  of  the  implementation  choices  made  by  Managing 
Authorities  as  the  RDP  budgets  are  limited  and  consequently  the  share  allocated  to 
support forests sometimes suffered from the fact that forestry was considered to be less 
important  than  agriculture  and  rural  development.  Finally,  the  administrative  burden  of 
implementing  the  FM  is  the  last  predominant  factor  behind  Managing  Authorities’ 
decisions on programming these measures, and also featured in the decisions of potential 
beneficiaries  considering  whether  to  apply  for  support.  Furthermore,  the  availability  of 
technical advice and other ‘soft’ measures influenced the choices of beneficiaries: this is 
particularly  important  in  the  case  of  small  forest  holders,  and  for  the  less  familiar 
measures for new agroforestry and forest environment payments. 

EFFECTIVENESS 

The  short  implementation  period  for  the  current  forest  measures  (2014-2017),  coupled 
with  major  delays  in  implementing  them  in  most  RDPs,  has  severely  limited  this 
appraisal.  Nevertheless,  potential  effects  could  be  estimated  by  taking  into  account  the 
outputs of equivalent measures from the previous programming period, where these are 
sufficiently similar.  

The  first  issue  to  highlight  is  the  importance  of  long-term  thinking  regarding  forest 
policies and measures: it is important to realise that, given that forest cycles and stand 
rotations  usually  span  decades  (and  for  some  stands  more  than  a  century),  all  the 
effects of the FM should be appraised over very long periods of time.  

The  effectiveness  of  the  evaluated  measure  is  presented  firstly  at  sub-measure  level, 
because  each  covers  significantly  different  topics,  followed  a  global  assessment  of  the 
whole  set  of 
forest  measures,  evaluating  to  what  extent  they  support  the 
multifunctionality  of  forests  and  sustainable  forest  management,  which  are  key 
objectives of the EU Forest Strategy. 

Support  for  afforestation  (M8.1)  has  been  programmed  in  half  of  the  2014-2020 
RDPs  and  represents  31%  of  the  total  planned  public  expenditure  for  the  FM  at  EU-28 
level. Over the previous period, half the area afforested with support from the equivalent 
measure was broadleaved stands, slightly less than a quarter was coniferous stands and 
a quarter was mixed. Fast-growing species remained marginal, with less than 2 % of the 
EU-28 hectarage.  

Based on our investigations, M8.1 proved to be a key measure affecting land use (EQ2) 
in  the  past  programming  period.  The  287 490  ha  supported  under  the  equivalent 
measures  corresponds  to  one  third  of  the  increase  in  the  EU  forest  area  between  2007 
and  2013.  Furthermore,  in  some  RDPs  such  as  UK-Scot  and  ES-Gal,  this  FM  played  a 
very significant role in the afforestation of the region. In most cases, afforestation was on 
marginal agricultural land, and half of the area afforested with RDP support was in Spain, 
the UK, Poland, Hungary and Lithuania. At EU level the size of afforestation projects on 
farms  was,  in  most  cases,  close  to  one  hectare.  However,  around  10%  of  the  projects 
supported afforestation of more than 20 ha, probably before ceasing activity, to transmit 

3 

 
 
 
Evaluation study of the forestry measures under Rural Development 

a  patrimony  to  the  descendants.  In  addition,  the  afforested  area  could  result  in  an 
increment of 2.3 million m3 of wood per year, which is not significant at the EU-level, but 
important in some MS such as the UK and even SP. 

We  have  nevertheless  shown  in  EQ  6  that  M8.1  can  provide  the  society  with  significant 
public goods besides wood. But we have also shown that even if forests can be profitable, 
most farmers/owners  would not be able to  invest and then wait such a long time for the 
income.  Therefore,  to  increase  afforestation  and  consequently  to  develop  the  related 
ecosystem services, it would be necessary to develop an incentive to afforest. This would 
also help to maintain an active forest sector in rural areas.  

Support  for  the  establishment  of  agroforestry  systems  (M8.2)  has  been 
programmed  in  only  one  quarter  of  the  RDPs  (and  only  5  RDPs  with  concrete 
implementation  on  the  previous  programming  period).  and  represent  2%  of  the  total 
planned public expenditure on the FM at EU-28 level. This low uptake appears mainly to 
relate  to  the  significant  change  implied  in  the  farming  system,  the  very  limited 
implementation of this measure in 2007-13 RDPs, a lack of familiarity in some  Member 
States and probably the absence of an incentive in the premium calculation. Hence this 
measure  has  had  little  impact  on  land  use  or  on  the  creation  of  additional  Ecological 
Focus  Areas.  In  areas  with  a  tradition  of  sylvopastoral  production  systems  (i.e.  ES,  PT, 
GR) this measure was often criticised for not supporting the restoration or maintenance 
of  existing  agroforestry  systems  (e.g.  dehesas  and  montados).  This  sub-measure 
nevertheless  appears  to  be  important  potential  tool  for  the  implementation  of  new 
management practices. In the evaluator’s opinion, its importance may rise in the coming 
years,  provided  that  a  sufficient  level  of  incentive  is  included  in  the  premium  and 
technical advice is readily available. 

Support for the prevention and restoration of damage to forests (M8.3 and 8.4) 
have been programmed in two thirds of the RDPs, representing 31% of the total planned 
public  expenditure  on  the  FM  at  EU-28  level.  Of  all  the  FM,  these  have  the  most 
significant  effect  as  they  concern  huge  areas  of  forest  and  also  bring  wider  societal 
benefits,  for  example  by  improving  the  fire  resilience  of  settlements  in  rural  areas 
(through  firebreaks,  fire-fighting  equipment,  etc.).  Our  investigations  show  that  these 
two  measures  are  of  central  importance  to  the  forest  sector  and  also  support  the 
continuity  of  forest  ecosystem  services  plus  adaptation  to  climate  change.  They  have 
supported  large  scale  implementation  of  forest  surveillance  systems  and  major 
restoration campaigns (557 000 ha were restored in the 2007-2013 period, mainly after 
significant  storms).  Furthermore,  M8.4  has  enabled  restoration  campaigns  on  a  larger 
scale and, in some cases, fostered the use of specific species (e.g. in UK-Scot) of interest 
from  an  environmental  and  climate  perspective,  and  helped  to  introduce  improved 
seedlings  with  a  higher  growth  rate  (FR-Aq),  thus  raising  the  production  and  carbon 
sequestration capacities.  

Support  for  productive  investment  (M8.6)  has  been  programmed  in  two  thirds  of 
RDPs  and  represents  11%  of  the  total  planned  public  expenditure  on  the  FM  at  EU-28 
level.  Our  evaluation  shows  that  it  is  a  key  measure  for  the  forest  sector.  Support  for 
investing in forestry technologies and the processing, mobilising and marketing of forest 
products has played an important and positive role in stimulating investment. Hence, this 
sub-measure  has  the  most  direct  effect  on  the  competitiveness  of  forest  companies  by 
supporting  the  purchase  of  machinery  for  harvesting  and  for  sylviculture,  and  in  most 
RDPs  targeting  the  support  at  SMEs  with  little  means  to  buy  such  costly  equipment.  In 
consequence,  it  also  played  an  important  role  in  maintaining  jobs  in  rural  areas,  by 
foresting 
in  disadvantaged  areas.  Furthermore,  this  measure 
contributed  to  introduce  sylvicultural  practices  with  reduced  environmental  impact, 
particularly  on  soils  (e.g.  low-pressure  tyres).  The  sylvicultural  operations  financed 
through  this  measure  (planting,  thinning,  pruning,  etc.)  will  normally  lead  to 
improvements in the quantity and quality of wood in several decades time. 

forest  production 

Nevertheless, the evaluators consider that the share of the budget of the FM dedicated to 
supporting  forests  as  an  economic  sector  (M8.6  represents  11%  of  the  FM  budget),  is 
surprisingly low, while the EU is the largest producer of round and sawnwood in the G20 
and  forest  has  a  very  significant  role  in  terms  of  economy  and  employment  in  rural 
areas.  

4 

 
 
 
Evaluation study of the forestry measures under Rural Development 

Improving  the  resilience  and  environmental  value  of  forest  ecosystems  (M8.5) 
and management for environment and climate services and forest conservation 
(M15.1)  are  a  key  source  of  EU  funding  to  support  sustainable  forest  management  to 
achieve EU biodiversity and climate priorities. M8.5 has been programmed in more than 
two thirds of the RDPs and represents 20% of the total planned public expenditure on the 
FM at EU-28 level. M15.1 has been programmed and allocated funds in just 25 RDPs and 
represents 4% of the FM budget at EU-28 level. It appears that the budgets and uptake 
targets  for  M15.1  management  contracts  are  far  below  the  scale  of  implementation 
required for MS to meet their legal obligations under the Habitats and Birds Directives to 
restore  and  maintain  the  Natura  2000  habitats  and  species  of  forests  and  traditional 
agroforestry systems. Recent EEA data shows that only 15% of Annex 1 forest habitats 
are in favourable conservation status and the trends are poor. More generally speaking, 
the FM have an important potential to safeguard and improve forest biodiversity, through 
appropriate design and targeting of these measures at identified local needs.  

The potential synergy of using M 15.1 in conjunction with M12.2 (which compensates for 
legal  restrictions  in  Natura  2000  and  other  nature  reserves)  is  sometimes  limited  by 
problems,  for  example  in  defining  the  baseline  for  payments  in  N2000  areas  (e.g.  IT-
Camp.),  and  by  the  impact  of  insufficient  RDP  funding  (in  DE-MV,  where  the  budget 
allowed only for 12.2 implementation). The evaluation has also shown the importance of 
supporting uptake through awareness raising and technical support (using M1 and M2 in 
particular).  

Support for the conservation and promotion of forest genetic resources (M15.2) 
was introduced in 2014, and has been little implemented so far (it is programmed in 14 
RDPs and representing 1 % of the total planned public expenditure  on the FM at EU-28 
level). This is probably because of the short implementation period and the tendency of 
Managing  Authorities  to  give  priority  to  measures  that  were  implemented  previously. 
Hence the assessment on the effect of this measure was difficult. However, case studies 
and the QS showed that there are growing needs related to genetic resources, related to 
forest  improvement  and  adaptation  to  climate  change.  In  that  context,  this  measure 
seems highly relevant to the evaluators and its importance may increase in the following 
years. 

Horizontal RD measures implemented in forests, such as M1 (knowledge transfer and 
information)  M.2  (advisory  services),  M4.3  (infrastructure),  M12.2  (compensation 
payment  for  Natura  2000)  and  16  (cooperation),  played  a  significant  role  in 
complementing  the  FM.  The  lack  of  specific  monitoring  data  limited  the  quantified 
analysis of their contribution, but the analysis of the RDPs showed that, among the RDPs 
in which M8 is programmed, 70 % also opened at least 4 horizontal measures to address 
forests.  The  case  study  showed  that  on  the  horizontal  measures  have  contributed  to 
better access to wood through building forest roads, biodiversity management, setting up 
forest management plans, adopting of new practices and innovation. 

From  the  analysis  of  effectiveness,  it  can  be  concluded  that  the  whole  set  of  FM 
(representing,  at  EU-28  level,  4.8 %  of  the  total  planned  public  expenditure  of  RDPs) 
and  horizontal  RDP  measures  implemented  in  forests,  the  effect  of  the  forest 
measures is generally very positive, even if often difficult to separate from other factors 
such as state aids and the operations funded by foresters on their own. If implemented 
coherently, effectively and over a sufficiently lengthy time period, the FM can contribute 
significantly  to  delivering  economic,  environmental  and  social  benefits  in  areas  where 
these  opportunities  can  be  rare.  The  set  of  forest  measures  covers  the  three  pillars  of 
sustainability,  allowing  Managing  Authorities  and  beneficiaries  to  set  up  activities  for 
multifunctional forests and sustainable forest management (SFM). In addition, among 
the  key  impacts  the  FM  are  expected  to  deliver  in  both  programming  periods  is  the 
medium  to  long-term  contribution  towards  climate  action,  including  increased  carbon 
sequestration potential through afforestation and forest management; preventing future 
damage;  and  contributing  to  resilient  and  sustainably  managed  forests,  particularly 
where  these  help  to  stabilise  and  reinstate  forest  carbon  sinks  and  improve  future 
adaptation.  

Nevertheless, the evaluation identified some possible improvements for a more effective 
implementation of the FM. Payment rates for some measures such as M8.1, M 8.2, M15.1 

5 

 
 
 
Evaluation study of the forestry measures under Rural Development 

is  often  too  low  to  be  an  incentive  enough  for  forest  holders  change  their  management 
practices  or  even  production  system. In  addition,  the  FM  budget  share  is  also  often  too 
small to achieve targets set in the RDPs and at EU policy level. 

EFFICIENCY 

The beneficiaries’ administrative burden (AB) in implementing the current FM was found 
to be a major factor affecting efficiency, compared to the previous period. For Managing 
Authorities, using open calls, standard cost options and digitisation helped to reduce their 
AB,  but  other  obligations  (e.g.  reinforced  control  requirements  and  systematic  double-
checks)  added  to  the  burden.  The  EC  reinforced  requirements  on  transparency  and 
traceability  between  the  two  programming  periods,  which  resulted  in  adaptations  at 
Member State level but it seems that the additional workload was mostly transferred to 
the  beneficiaries.  The  AB  is  especially  high  for  small  forest  holders  with  little  financial 
and/or technical capacity to handle very complex files and procedures.  

Our analysis showed that the operations supported are paid for at market prices, ensured 
through  mechanisms  such  as  public  procurement  and  justification  of  the  standard  scale 
of  unit  costs.  The  deadweight  effect  of  the  FM  is  globally  considered  as  low  by  the 
evaluators,  and  the  cost/benefit  ratio  is  generally  low  for  small  holdings,  even  if  some 
RDPs have put a higher premium on small scale activities to take this into account (e.g. 
UK-Scot). 

In conclusion on efficiency, the greatest impact of changes in AB over the two periods fell 
on the beneficiaries, but also to a certain extent on Managing Authorities which led some 
of  them  to  abandon  the  FM  and  address  their  forest  needs  of  through  State  Aids  with 
simplified procedure and sometimes higher premiums.  

COHERENCE 

The  evaluation  shows  that  the  FM  are  coherent  (i.e.  do  not  conflict)  at  EU  level  with 
other relevant CAP measures aimed at sustainable management of natural resources and 
climate  action,  and  balanced  territorial  development.  This  relates  mainly  to  the 
interaction  between  the  FM,  Pillar  1  greening  measures  and  other  RDP  measures. 
However,  in  the  case  of  traditional  agroforestry  there  is  potential  for  lack  of  coherence 
between  Member  States’  definition  of  the  eligibility  of  this  land  for  Pillar  1  income 
support  and  the  effective  use  of  M15  and  M8.5  to  support  environmental  management 
on the land, and also a lack of coherence in RDP payment rules, depending on whether 
these systems are classed as agricultural or forest land. 

In  terms  of  external  coherence  the  evaluation  shows  that  forests  play  a  crucial  role  in 
delivering  environment  and  climate  objectives  both  at  the  EU  and  global  level  and, 
supported by the FM, are key components in the achievement of EU policy  initiatives in 
this  area.  The  FM  were  found  to  be  coherent  with  the  objectives  of  the  14  key 
environment  and  climate  policies  reviewed  with  these  policies,  such  as  the  EU  forest 
strategy, Biodiversity policies and Climate policies featuring frequently in reference to the 
use of forest measures in RDPs as well as the reciprocal. For example, many of the 2014-
20 RDPs identify the contribution of forest measures to national climate action plans, and 
analysis of Member State LULUCF Decision Article 10 reports suggest that EAFRD support 
and the forest measures are a key component of these actions. Biodiversity policies were 
similarly  well  referenced  with  examples  in  the  case  studies  illustrating  forest 
management  plans  taking  account  of  biodiversity  policies,  for  example  by  assessing 
compliance  with  Natura  2000  guidelines.  Less  explicit  reference  to  the  use  of  forest 
measures to support soil and water policies were found in the cases studies, despite clear 
potential to use the forest measures for these objectives.  

We  have  shown  that  long-term  forest  management  can  be  necessary  to  achieve 
objectives that require sustained action over decades, such as maintaining and increasing 
carbon  sinks,  stabilising  the  provision  of  ecosystem  services  alongside  continued 
productivity,  and  maintaining  the  biodiversity  and  economic  viability  of  existing  low-
intensity  systems.  The  decisions  taken  at  the  national  and  regional  level  by  Member 
States  therefore  have  a  significant  impact  on  whether  the  FM  have  the  potential  to 

6 

 
 
 
Evaluation study of the forestry measures under Rural Development 

deliver  synergies  or  not,  and  land  managers’  decisions  determine  whether  or  not  these 
potential synergies are realised in practice. It is worth noting that the delivery of multiple 
objectives  is  not  guaranteed  to  be  the  case  even  if  this  is  the  intention,  as  not  all 
environment  and  climate  objectives  can  be  delivered  synergistically  in  all  cases 
(Burrascano  et  al,  2016;  Hart  et  al,  2013).  Choosing  how  and  where  to  prioritise  (or 
combine)  different  objectives  is  crucial  to  ensuring  synergies  (where  possible)  and 
avoiding conflicts.  

At  the  level  of  EU  legislation,  the  forest  measures  are  coherent  with  all  ESI-Funds  and 
associated  research  and  investment  programmes  evaluated  in  this  study  and  have 
potential  synergies  at  the  measure  design  level.    For  the  2014-20 programming  period, 
common  rules  ensure  that  the  ESI-Funds  are  used  in  a  more  strategic  and 
complementary  manner.  Partnership  Agreements  are  negotiated  between 
the 
Commission and Member States authorities and should ensure an overall high degree of 
coherence  between  the  thematic  priorities  of  the  Funds  and  the  territory-specific 
development needs. 

RELEVANCE 

The FM are highly relevant to addressing the EU priorities for Rural Development policy, 
and are in line with the priorities set up a national or regional level (EQ13). The analysis 
showed  that  several  factors,  such  as  the  RDP  framework  itself  and  the  need  for  MS  to 
address  their  international  commitments,  resulted  in  a  strong  focus  of  the  FM  on  the 
environmental and climate priorities for the RD policy.  

The FM provide MA with a relevant set of instruments to address the needs of the forest 
economic sector, the most widespread of which are protection from the effects of natural 
disasters;  building  capacity  among  forest  holders  and  stimulating  innovation;  and 
improving  infrastructures  and  harvesting  capacities  to  increase  local  wood  supply.  The 
collaboration of the Managing Authorities with representatives of the sector in designing 
the  FM  appeared  in  the  evaluation  study  as  a  key  factor  to  ensure  their  relevance  to 
addressing  local  needs.  The  analysis  also  showed  the  importance  of  the  other  RD 
measures  in  complement  the  FM  to  provide  a  wider  set  of  instruments  available  to 
address the needs of the sector.  

Concerning  the  match  between  the  FM  and  future  needs  (EQ14),  even  with  some 
uncertainty,  as  author’s  opinions  diverge,  the  projections  over  the  next  decades  show 
that production would, on average, provide a good coverage of the sector needs in wood, 
even  if  some  products  (as  now)  will  have  to  be  imported  (e.g.  coniferous  products  or 
tropical  wood).  In  terms  of  environment  and  climate,  the  literature  and  interviews 
confirm that, for the coming decades, the two main global challenges to the forest sector 
are adaptation to climate change and biodiversity, even if their role in other domains will 
of course remain (e.g. water regulation, soil conservation, etc.). 

Concerning climate change mitigation, forests are the most significant terrestrial carbon 
sink in the EU and are expected to remain so in the coming decades, yet the overall level 
of  sequestered  carbon  in  forests  is  expected  to  decrease  towards  2030.  This  is  due  in 
particular to the change in management of forests to meet an expected higher demand 
for  wood  compounded  by  a  progression  in  the  age  class  of  trees  towards  more  mature 
stands with reduced growth and thus lower sequestration potential.  

For  biodiversity,  there  are  quantitative targets  in  the  EU  Biodiversity  Strategy and  legal 
obligations  for  Member  States  on  the  conservation  status  of  Natura  2000  habitats  and 
species, which are clearly not being met (EQ 6). The area of protected forests and other 
wooded  land  within  the  EU  is  likely  to  have  to  increase  over  next  decades,  if  EU 
biodiversity policies and targets are to be achieved.  

Finally  it  is  important  to  bear  in  mind  that  when  a  decision  is  taken  and  applied  at  EU 
level, which is a major wood producer, these decisions have effects at global level. This is 
particularly true for forest conservation, which can lead to some withdrawal of production 
within  the  EU  and  in  consequence  to  importation  of  wood  to  cover  the  EU  needs.  This 
means that protected forest in the EU could lead to some pressure on forests elsewhere. 

7 

 
 
 
Evaluation study of the forestry measures under Rural Development 

Overall,  the  present  Rural  Development  measures  are  aligned  with  and  sufficiently 
opened  to  match  these  future  needs.  Nevertheless,  it  is  not  entirely  sure  that  the 
available budgets will cover all the needs, which will increase over the period and in the 
future, particularly in terms of carbon sequestration and biodiversity, besides the supply 
of wood and other forest products which should normally be covered by the market, even 
in  MS/Regions  that  have  chosen  to  replace  or  complement  Rural  Development  FM  with 
State Aids. 

EU ADDED VALUE 

The  evaluation  results  reveal  that  the  quality  and  quantity  of  funding  for  FM  would 
decrease  without  EU  support.  This  would  also  be  the  case  for  other  climate-  and 
environment-related  measures  that  affect  forests.  The  evaluation  has  furthermore 
identified a direct relationship between the FM and other pertinent EU policy objectives, 
including 
forest  ecosystems,  biodiversity 
conservation,  2020/2030  climate  and  energy  targets,  forest  monitoring  and  the  timber 
trade.  

for  restoring  and  enhancing 

targets 

More  could  be  done  to  improve  networking  and  exchange  of  best  practices,  across  and 
within  Member  States.  Managing  Authorities  often  do  not  utilise  the  options  offered  by 
the current M1.  

The EU could become better at harnessing positive developments in areas where Member 
States  see  added  value.  This  could  include  further  improvements  in  the  regulations 
surrounding the RDP FM. For example, reducing the red-tape and Administrative Burden. 
Legislative  changes  may  however  face  opposition,  given  the  wide  range  of  opinions  on 
increased  regulation  by  Member  States  as  well  as  the  perceived  role  of  the  MA,  the 
national forest sector and the emphasis on freedom of choice. 

Even though there is room for improvement, it is fundamentally clear that the EU Rural 
Development Fund has been important in the uptake of FM by Member States. In other 
words,  there  are  forest  measures  that  would  either  not  have  been  funded  to  the  same 
extent, or not implemented at all, in the absence of RDP support. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Based on the above conclusions the main recommendations of this evaluation are to: 

1.  Maintain  the  forestry  measures  under  RD,  as  they  are  critical  to  establish  and 
maintain  sustainable  forest  management  within  the  EU  and  enable  MS/Regions  to 
choose measures covering their economic, environmental and social needs. 

2.  Design RDP support for forests on a timescale adapted to forest cycles by: 

a.  When  reviewing/revising  the  RD  Regulations  considering  the  need  for  long  term 

thinking regarding support to forest.  

b.  Limiting changes in the measures and their implementation procedures. 

3.  Ensure a coherent budget is allocated to forest priorities in the RDPs, by: 

a.  Ensuring  that  the  share  of  the  RDP  budget  that  is  allocated  to  forest  is  in 
coherence  with  the  present  and  the  future  needs  of  the  forest  sector  and  the 
environmental and climate commitments of the EU and Members States. 

b.  Encouraging Managing Authorities to allocate balanced means to the FM to enable 
creating  and  maintaining  multifunctional  forests  projects  allowing  to  support 
simultaneously  the  economic,  social  and  environmental  functions  of  forests.  For 
example,  the  share  of  11  %  of  the  planned  expenditure  allocated  to  the 
competitiveness  of  the  sector  (mainly  through  M  8.6:  support  for  productive 
investment)  is  considered  as  too  low  by  the  evaluators,  compared  to  the  role  of 
the EU in the timber world market. In the same order, the share of 1% of M15.1 
(payments  for  environment  and  climate  services),  is  far  from  what  would  be 
required  for  MS  to  meet  their  legal  obligations  under  the  Habitats  and  Birds 
Directives to restore and maintain the Natura 2000 habitats and species of forests 
and traditional agroforestry systems. 

8 

 
 
 
Evaluation study of the forestry measures under Rural Development 

4.  Improve the  coherence  of the FM  and  the  horizontal measures, and of their 

implementation rules, by: 
a.  Reducing  the  risks  and  initial  cost  for  beneficiaries  in  applying  for  support,  in 
particular by fostering the use of digitalisation and centralised databases, and the 
provision of technical support in the application phase. 

b.  Ensuring  the  inclusion  of  small  holders  and  private  holders  in  RD  schemes, 
through  better  support  from  advisers  and/or  a  bonus  in  premiums  for  small 
holdings (e.g. by extending the availability of transaction costs for M15 from 20% 
to  30%  for  group  applications,  limiting  the  administrative  documentation  for 
them).  For  all  beneficiaries,  develop  at  Member  States/Regions  level  on  line 
applications. 

c.  At  RDP  level,  restricting  the  use  of  calls  for  proposals/projects  and  competitive 

procedures to significant projects (e.g. above a financial threshold),  

d.  Making  it  easier  to  apply  for  projects  with  clearly  defined  environmental 
objectives, to be targeted and implemented in the most appropriate locations. 
e.  Review/revise  payment  control  and  verification  procedures  for  forest  stands,  to 
remove  irrelevant  annual  controls  and  replace  them  with  requirements  and 
procedures designed to ensure the durability of the afforested or restored stands. 

f.  Improve  the  geographical  identification  of  plots  afforested  or  converted  to 
agroforestry  with  FM  support,  to  enable  monitoring  of  the  impact  of  the  FM  on 
land  use  change  and  the  effect  on  wood  production  and  on  environmental  and 
climate priorities. 

g.  Improve  monitoring/evaluation  systems  to  provide  better  information  a)  on  the 
use  of  RDP  horizontal  measures  in  forests  and  b)  the  impact  of  the 
implementation of the FM on EU RD priorities 

h.  Require Member States to demonstrate the coherence of their definition of Pillar 1 
rules  for  direct  payments  with  their  programming  of  RDP  measures  to  foster  the 
establishment and long-term maintenance of forests and agroforestry systems.  

5.  Increase  the  uptake  of  FM  that  jointly  deliver  private  and  significant  public 

goods, by: 
a.  Review/revise  the  basis  for  calculating  payments  of  M8.1,  8.2  and  15.1  to 
increase  both  uptake and  the  joint  production  of  wood and  other  forest  products 
alongside  improved  ecosystem  services,  carbon  sinks  and  biodiversity,  whilst 
improving resilience to climate change and maintaining a dynamic forest sector in 
rural areas.  

b.  Ensure  that  the  afforestation  targets  for  2014-2020,  representing  30  to  55%  of 
the  increase  in  forest  area  at  EU  level,,  will  be  achieved  (by  2023)  in  order  to 
improve  implementation  of  sustainable  forest  management,  and  optimise 
provision of ecosystem services and carbon sequestration/sinks in new forests.  
c.  Combine M8 and M15 with the necessary horizontal measures, such as M.1, M.2, 

M4, M16, to improve their effectiveness and efficiency. 

6.  Improve contribution of FM and related measures to EU biodiversity targets:  
a.  In the EU CAP implementing regulations and Commission guidance for both Pillars, 
establish a clearer link between the objectives for the FM as a whole and Member 
States’  Priority  Action  Frameworks  to  meet  their  obligations  under  the  Habitats 
and Birds Directives, in forests and other wooded land. 

b.  Where  RDPs  have  programmed  M8.5  and  M15.1,  require  these  measures  to 
prioritise  identified  needs  of  Natura  2000  habitats  and  species  both  inside 
designated Natura 2000 sites and elsewhere. 

c.  Improve  the  uptake  of  the  FM  for  establishing  agroforestry  (especially  on 
economically  marginal  farmland)  and  require  the  RDP  funded  Farm  Advisory 
Services make farmers aware of the economic and climate adaptation benefits of 
introducing agroforestry. 

7.  Improve the resilience of forest to climate change, and their contribution to the EU’s 

long-term climate commitments by:  

9 

 
 
 
Evaluation study of the forestry measures under Rural Development 

a.  Reviewing/revising  the  measure  descriptions  in  the  Regulation  to  ensure  that  all 
the  FM  support  inter  alia  the  implementation  of  management  practices/actions 
which  contribute  a)  to  the  adaptation  of  forests  to  climate  change  and  b)  to  the 
long-term  management  of  forests  as  a  carbon  sink,  particularly  in  relation  to 
supporting Member State actions under the LULUCF Decision.  

b.  Requiring  Member  States  to  report  on  the  contribution  to  climate  commitments 
made  by  their  implementation  of  the  FM,  in  order  to  support  and  complement 
reporting under the EU’s climate accounting framework. 

8.  Increase EU Added value, by: 

a.  Improving networking and exchange of best practices, across and within Member 
States, by making more use of the options under M1, streamlined with activities of 
the  European  Network  for  Rural  Development  (ENRD).  For  example,  improved 
exchange of experience with scientific and practice experts, between national and 
EU  levels,  and  through  other  kinds  of  organised  information  exchange  under  the 
current RDP framework.  

b.  Addressing the impact from other sectors where the EU has competence, and the 
direct  and  indirect  effects  these  are  having  on  forests.  This  refers  to  both  policy 
incoherence  and  cross-sectoral 
to  unsustainable  and 
trade-offs 
uncoordinated  use  of  forest  resources,  and  in  terms  of  the  FM  adding  value  to 
other key EU policy objectives. 

leading 

9.  Improve global impacts, by designing measures and their implementation rules at 
EU  level,  taking  into  account  that  the  EU  is  a  major  wood  producer  whose  forest 
management have a direct impact at global level, and that the EU policies may have 
an  indirect  impact  in  other  regions  of  the  world,  producing  food  and  wood  which  is 
then  imported  by  the  EU.  Also  bearing  in  mind  that  EU  regulations  such  as  the  EU 
Timber  Regulation  or  the  FLEGT  partnerships  mainly  regulate  the  legality  of  timber 
exports and that the sustainability of the forest resource utilization of these exporting 
countries is generally not really evaluated. 

10